depends on the situation. In the talking phase, women excell. When it comes to intimidation and dominating an encounter, men are much better. They can often aviod having to use force by making it clear that the civilian is going to lose.

Women on the other hand, have fewer options if the situation escalates and are more likely for example to resort to brandishing or firing a weapon, than a male officer who may be able to escalate only to a baton.

LarsPorsena answered the question about women in combat with "Twenty mile road marches with 65 lbs of gear on separates the boys from the girls. Shooting a perp with a 9mm is long way from humping a machine gun in the Hindu Kush."

Well, I know of plenty of men who can not do the above. I also know of plenty of women who can. What was your point again?

Twenty mile road marches with 65 lbs of gear on separates the boys from the girls. Shooting a perp with a 9mm is long way from humping a machine gun in the Hindu Kush.

This is a good point, however, much of our combat is now technologized (if that is even a word) and don't always rely on being physically strong. Not all men are able to do the marching or heavy lifting.

I think women can certainly fill some niches in combat that don't require brute strength. Why not have teams that blend the skills and physical attributes of the men and women.

Not having been in the military, my opinion is just theoretical. People who have actually been there might have a better idea of why some women shouldn't be in physical combat. Their real life opinions and experiences should certainly carry more weight than my musings at my computer.

What's the question about women being /not being in combat? That was decided years ago. Women are barred from certain jobs which involve "close combat" or close quarters like subs. They have been pilots, etc for years.

2) I recall the person who took out that church shooter earlier in the year was also a woman.

3) Re women in combat -- Watching Band of Brothers these days. Just said to hubby as we watched one of the ongoing battle scenes with the incredible amount of physical effort being exerted -- must be one reason why women would not do well in those kinds of situations... Though I think they would do quite well in some situations. It's in the training. What do the women in the Israeli Army do?

4) Which brings up the cognitive dissonance all this had in the initial 5 seconds -- you hear shots (not unfamiliar) in the wrong place (out of context) and look around to see the person who is firing a gun at people -- and it is one of you -- and an officer at that. Difficult to process instantly.

5) 5'4", 120 lbs. Wouldn't that make her an unattractive "plus size" according to the fashionistas? ;-)

A 5'4" woman with 14 rounds of 9mm is the exact same height and size as a 6'4" man with the same gun.

Better off even, as women (in my experience) tend to be better shots under pressure after training. I think they have a much smaller part of the brain telling them to scream, leap, and eat their enemy's liver.

Unless there is chocolate involved, in which case you just have to wait for the blood to stop splattering and call the Hague.

Because the military is NOT a social science experiment. It exists to deliver meximum hurt on the nation's enemies, not as a feel good jobs program. Things that improve it should be supported, things that distract from its mission should not be contemplated.

There are too few women that can go up and down afghan hills for 16 hours carrying 60-80 pounds of crap and fight at the end of the day to make adding them to our combat units.

Women certainly have a role in the Army. (My wife is a National Guard Colonel FWIW), but it doesn't mean that equal opportunity exists to open up all jobs to women.

They make superior pilots. They make pretty good MP's. They do a lot of things well.

They are poor at breaking track on an M1A2, or loading 120mm tank rounds, or humping an M240 up a 2,000 meter hill.

Ground combat is an ugly ugly place. Women in that environment would be a terrible distraction. Maybe in 100 years we will have lots of bigger tough women willing to do that work. Today, we dont.

The fact that 1 in a thousand women can do it is a great factiod. but we have enough men who can do it better. so if we have 60,000 troops in A-stan and 10% are women, thats 6k. and if 6 women can keep up with the average man in a light infantry squad, do you really thik it makes sense to assign the 6 to that job?

do you think the Army would be a more effective combat force if those 6 (and it is unlikely that all 6 would want to) served as riflemen? With the morale impacts social distruption?

think less about individual freedoms and more about force effectiveness

Hasn't Ms. Althouse made the point repeatedly that arguing that women are better at things than men is just as sexist as arguing the reverse? A female policeman does her job and shoots a criminal, and suddenly it's all "women are better cops", "women are better under fire", "women are better at talking", etc, etc. More of the soft bigotry of low expectations.

You do understand that, with or without gun control she would still have a gun because she is a cop. Women can't be in combat? That crap about the 65 lob packs etc. Hey, a woman carries on the average about 65 extra pounds when she is pregnant and travels here and there, hither and yon without a complaint. I was crawling on the floor connecting computers for a product demonstration a week before I delivered. Women tougher than men, Duh!!

BTW, please don't make this all about politics and Obama. That guy should have been out years ago when the problems first arose. People in the military chose to do nothing about it.

Not surprising to find out that they did nothing, think about the Pat Tillman fiasco, where the military consistently lied about him andhow he died.The cover-up, from the highest level of the administration went on and on.

Shameful, just to make them (the administration and the army) look good.

No, merely a recognition of the undeniable truth that men are men, and women are women, and that men are not women, and women are not men.

The two sexes may be equal in dignity and rights, and they may be complementary to each other, but they are not the exactly the same. They are not always and everywhere interchangable.

The differentiation of the sexes means something and it has actual, real life effects. That does not make one better or worse than the other. It only means that they are not the same, despite relativistic ideological attempts to redefine the truth of men and the truth of women.

Women in general are not better combatants, but excluding the women who have the character to act like Drill SGT describes @ 3:05 is a huge mistake. War is won be superior numbers of trained and naturally skilled warriors. Take every woman that qualifies and you will beat the opposing group who refuses to accept women to preserve their male's Status needs and runs short of personnel.

Most men can not do the above. What is your point? Why not put your sexist attitudes aside and base combat roles on merit regardless of sex?

Most men can be conditioned and trained to do that - witness WWII; most women can't - upper body and all that.

We can argue about women as fighters in the mental sense. My own view is that women fight usually as an emotional, last ditch thing; guys have a ton of reasons - some guys will fight for lack of anything better to do. In that sense, women don't believe in rules if they've gone that far and men are forever creating rules for fighting (Marquess of Queensbury and all that)plus there are a lot of rules in war.

That being said, Sgt. Munley is a heroine; that she is a lady should never be forgotten.

Victoria - I was crawling on the floor connecting computers for a product demonstration a week before I delivered. Women tougher than men, Duh!!

Please don't be ignorant enough to equate PC maintenance to being an infantryman. There is no comparison between you crawling around hooking up LAN cables and what a combat soldier or marine goes through physically.

Not surprising to find out that they did nothing, think about the Pat Tillman fiasco, where the military consistently lied about him andhow he died.The cover-up, from the highest level of the administration went on and on.

That's nice. I suppose you still believe the "plastic turkey" story as well.

Drill Sgt, nice post at 1523. The troops only wish that they were carrying 65-80 pounds of stuff when on dismounted patrol. Army and GAO studies show average is more like 120-135 pounds for dismounted patrols.

For all you who think that women can carry THOSE loads understand that the men are reporting soaring rates of back, knee, and leg injuries. Biomechanically, women cannot carry heavy loads for the same distances and times as men. Has to due with hip and lung structure.

A lot of you are justifying your hillbilly prejudices by saying that our troops have to go on sixty mile marches while carrying eighty pound back packs when in combat. Outside of special ops when the hell does that happen? Don't they have helicopters? Jeeps? Horses?

I think our troops should be at least six feet tall so they can load their front loaded muzzles.

I wrote this about firefighters, but I think it applies to this fine woman as well:

"Yet when they take off their uniforms, they can pass unnoticed in a crowd- proof that extraordinary spirits can exist in ordinary people.

For many adults, adrift in an unstable world, unable to believe in a God or trust their political leaders, the icon of the firefighter is one enduring expression of their childhood's faith. It's one of the few things they are still willing to believe in.

The Drill SGT. wrote "There are too few women that can go up and down afghan hills for 16 hours carrying 60-80 pounds of crap and fight at the end of the day to make adding them to our combat units."

"Most men can not do the above. What is your point? Why not put your sexist attitudes aside and base combat roles on merit regardless of sex?"

This is ignorant. Sorry, but it really is. MEN also have to physically QUALIFY for military service. They have to maintain fitness and pass fitness tests that exceed those standards women are required to meet. The men who can't meet the physical requirements are not allowed to serve at all.

The Drill Sgt. is absolutely correct that there are TOO FEW women who can take on an infantry role. Maybe someday we can model a social framework where a single female can join the band of brothers as a sister and have it work. We are not there. And you know what? The simple demand of exceptionalism PROVES that women should not be added to those combat units. The unit is NEVER ABOUT YOU. The military is about a team. Apparently women, certainly those making a fuss here, haven't got the concept of team. A team means doing what needs to be done, not polishing your ego.

The more women that can fill non-infantry jobs the more men are freed up for them. Women serve as MP's and have been detailed to dangerous check-point and house-to-house duty. They serve as medics on the "front lines" and fly all sorts of aircraft into combat and out of it.

Having a snit because women are not assigned to infantry or SF units is about something other than service. All I can say is PLEASE do not join the military. There isn't anyone who wants to serve with a drama queen.

And Victoria... God made you with a womb. It's not a personal accomplishment.

My husband works for the county sheriff's department. They have quite a few deputies who are petite women. He has seen them slam prisoners against the wall with little effort, and he has tremendous admiration and respect for them. But I agree, combat is a different situation ENTIRELY. I only know this from what he's told me. He is not a sexist by any stretch but is adamantly against having women in the combat.

She behaved very well in a scary, confusing moment. You can argue about combat fitness all you want, but she proved in this case that women are fit for dangerous police duty. She's very brave and good, and that's rare enough in any person of any sex....Whether she turns out to be an Obama volunteer or a Palin enthusiast, she's a worthy person, and we should celebrate her courage and the fact that America still produces such citizens.

Munley - she went straight into the blazing muzzle. What a berserker when it was required! I'm in awe.

The son of an old friend was a sniper in Afghanistan. He and his spotter (who was killed) carried up to 100 lbs each. They were extracted at the end of missions by a female helicopter pilot, who would come in under fire as necessary. After the first time she brought pairs of clean pants for them to put on (when there was time) before accepting them in the helicopter. If you don't get why, read up on sniping.

I work with some very tough women in the fire service, and worked with some very tough women rangers; some are quite petite, yet they pass the same fitness tests men do. But what we do is not in a class with infantry requirements, especially in Afghanistan. To expect them to carry 70 - 80% of their body weight for 6 - 8 hours in country with 1000m local relief would not work out. My friend's son lost 1.5 inches in height by the close of his deployment.

"While strength is an important issue, another problem with women serving in combat in the infantry is that many young women tend to get pregnant and then need to be re-assigned"

"Woah!! I wonder what it is that causes that. Maybe we should fund a 2 billion dollar study to figure it out."

The military used to refuse permission for young men to get married before a certain rank.

Sometimes I think that the military ought to require women to have Norplant or something before a certain number of years in service or rank.

I feel it's a common-sense measure that would be impossible to implement. But perhaps not. Service is voluntary, after all, and enlistment is denied if a single person has dependents, for example. Or at least used to be. But there would be no real reason to treat men the same so someone would probably take it to court.

PatCA said... I thank her for her courage.Imagine how many people would be alive today if soldiers had been allowed to carry arms.

I heard the same from rabid gun enthusiasts about "imagine how much safer we'd all be if everyone could carry a high capacity, high stopping power weapon onto airplanes, while dealing on the streetcorner, to our workplaces." Not to mention the schools, where the younger ones might need to make do with .22s. And a good gun should be in the hands of every motorist so they can deal effectively with road rage situations...I think everyone would agree that you would have less wholesale loss of lives in massacres like VT, but you would have far more lives, planes, etc. lost culmulatively. The gun lover's maxim of an "everyone is armed society" being a safer more polite society does not apply to inner city blacks, barbarous Islamoids slaughtering one another. And you would have a lot more shot up or crashed planes as one nut with a gun would trigger a semi-auto shooting craze. (Even cops who are supposed to be trained well tend to lose it when firing starts and their reaction is to empty clip after clip out on what seems to be a threat to them.

One recent incident - "Drunk old black guy stopped by 3 squad cars and two carloads of nearby deputies ignores instructions, and to one new deputy, appears to have a gun in hand (it was his cell phone). 1st shot sets off chain reaction. 142 shots later pumped into the car, the driver is wounded but alive. And one "hero" has lead spatter in his face, and another "hero cop" has a bullet lodged in his vest from another "hero cop" gun.

Dogwood - The purpose of the military is to kill our enemies. Does adding women to frontline ground combat units help or hurt that effort? That is the only question that matters.

No, there is also the demographic problem of mobilizing women in their prime child-bearing years in "critical!!!" spots in the military and industry where child-bearing is actively discouraged for the sake of career advancement!! or "good of the nation"!!

The leaders of the Soviet Union got themselves in a horrific position in WWII and it's aftermath by championing women outside the childbearing role. NOt only did they have war losses, but the sometimes forced abortions of women "hero military" and "hero workers" actually cost the Soviets more people than were killed in the war.In 1941, the Soviets had 196 million. 170 million in 1946. It took until 1958 to replace population to prewar numbers, and while doing so, the population shifted to a lot more relatively unassimilated Muslims and less European white by percentages. Throughout the late 50s and 60s, the Soviets stagnated economically. Not just from Communism, but from the dearth of young workers who were aborted away in the 40s so "hero women" could man artillery posts and get Stakhovite Awards for coal production..After the breakup of the Soviet Union, Russians wrote of the folly of ethnic Russians burning the demographic candle on both ends before, during, and after WWII. It made the dissolution of the Russian Empire inevitable as other ethnic groups, especially Muslims, gained great numerical superiority in various regions that later became independent.

In contrast, while there were some "Rosie the Riveter" types in the US, Germany, Japan, Australia, etc., the women were mostly off any frontline combat, raising the families that would fuel the US, German, Japanese, etc. "economic miracles" of the late 50s to early 70s.

No, it is the role of women in respect to the overall health and vigor of a nation that counts, not what marginal gains or losses they amount to simply in military service..

The Israelis have somewhat learned the lesson the Russians belatedly did..though they are still being clobbered by Islamoids demographically. No more women in front line combat positions there anymore, and no more discouragement of marriage and childbearing for Israelis in peak reproductive years.

The Muslims themselves are singularly unimpressed with a "kickass" female infidel - taking the long view. "We are supposed to be awed that a childless female 10 kilometers up can drop a bomb killing us, our women and children? While she has no babies, my wife has 9. Hopefully all nine will bear or sire many children who in turn create more warriors or bearers of warriors. Then in 30 years, we will have that many more fighters who will gladly sacrifice our lives..while your diminished supply of warriors will fill you with fear and reluctance to expend them." And the Muslims in Palestine or the radicalized Islamists in Pakistan and Europe frankly wish for more infidel women having abortions or childless careers in and out of the military.

I agree with those who think that the distinction between men and women permitted roles should no longer be 'combat' or 'non-combat'.

But in combat, being very strong in upper body can be necessary in unpredictable ways. Building a quick position, carrying a 250 pound man on your shoulders, stabbing an enemy, or any number of ugly things, is within the job description. So the physical fitness test should require the same things. A woman who cannot do 40 great pushups or 10 good pullups does not belong on the battlefield at all, regardless of what her listed job is. Many women are able to be that fit, though.

For fighter pilots and Navy captains, I see no reason for such requirements, though.

The DoD did a test, and 99 out of 100 times, a random make is stronger than a random women. There is a huge difference between our sexes, and if we want to talk about integration, we have to be very frank about those differences and how to deal with them (menstruation hygiene in the jungle, for example). There are units out there that simply don't bathe. That doesn't mean we should waste our brave, strong women who want to fight.

As for Hasan, it was criminal that the Army did not act sooner. I heard on NPR (after making some ridiculous PC statement that you can't determine if religion was part of this) then report that Hasan gave a speech at a medical convention (the type where you describe a new technique or medication to fellow physicians) and proceeded to rant on how non believers in Islam would be decapitated in hell and have hot oil poured down their throats. A Muslim doctor in the audience tried to interrupt him and say his interpretation was flawed and was shouted down. The doctors in attendence were horrified by the display. And then Hasan did a similar rant on another public occasion. Talk about a warning sign.

We have a doctor treating soldiers who thinks the wars they are fighting are evil and that non believers in Islam are going to burn forever in hell? Heads need to roll (not actually as Hasan would support but figuratively) for sure, because someone seriously screwed up not getting this mad man out of the Army sooner.

And next time Andrew Sullivan or Charles Johnson or some other idiot disparges Christians over something trivial, someone please slap them in the face and tell them to shut up. I am sorry, but Christians and Jews are not doing these sorts of crimes. Muslims are. There is something very wrong with Islam right now. I recognize it is a minority extremist faction of the religion, I am not blaming all Muslims. But Islam and Muslims have to deal with and stop this madness.